http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gifI like flying the axis planes, I love the sound of some of the German planes. I just can't do combat in them. I just cannot make myself pretend to be a German shooting down Allies. I just can't do it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.jpg

Monty_Thrud

04-16-2004, 12:34 PM

I dont...i fly the MkII Hurricane against the MkI Hurricane ...all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif...however i was shot down by the MkI yesterday, this plane is obviously overmoddled...i demand its FM is changed "IMMEDIATELY"...or i shall scream until i'm sick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The war ended 60 years ago. The German planes and pilots were, many of them, very good. As part of their job they flew against my father; that was unfortunate for both. But it doesn't make much sense to avoid the experience of sitting in the virtual cockpit of an excellent aircraft because of these events so long ago.

I fly LW planes because they climb, turn, dive and roll very well. And because I don't link the planes specifically to a flawed idiology.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BClfFfABY1qmLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

Korolov

04-16-2004, 12:55 PM

Because the Fw-190 rolls like a mutha, and dives like a 5 ton anvil.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WUAF_Badsight

04-16-2004, 12:59 PM

i like the challenge of flying with the weaker planes

DM wise

BnZ when you fly it correctly is just as skillfull as Dogfighting by TnB when thats also done correctly

but when you have no "seat-of-the-pants" feelings & are only going by sight & sound makes E fighting & E management a tad harder

alsoalso E fighting up high against another for advantage is just as exciting as Dogfighting with TnB under 5K

hos8367

04-16-2004, 12:59 PM

I just fly which ever team needs more people, so I guess my answer is too many reds...

ASH at S-MART

04-16-2004, 01:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Why do you fly Axis planes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None of your business

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I just fly which ever team needs more people, so I guess my answer is too many reds...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL...too true.
Too many reds, feeling that the VVS plane are uber and everyone likes the underdog, having a 108 nose cannon is a freudian issue covering up for other inadequacies, the list goes on and on...most importantly I can actually semi-decently fly the 109...and not much else.

I build COOPs and DF maps. If you would like some of them you can get them atmy COOP page (http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm)

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VOW and may join other online wars in the future. Go to our forums at http://www.jg1-oesau.org/ for more details and to apply.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 01:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jensenpark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I just fly which ever team needs more people, so I guess my answer is too many reds...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL...too true.
Too many reds, feeling that the VVS plane are uber and everyone likes the underdog, having a 108 nose cannon is a freudian issue covering up for other inadequacies, the list goes on and on...most importantly I can actually semi-decently fly the 109...and not much else.

Well thats ok Maj_Death cause you own all are bases anyway http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
We moved out ages ago...its all part of a cunning plan http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif...either that or ground rentals due http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
I dont...i fly the MkII Hurricane against the MkI Hurricane ...all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif...however i was shot down by the MkI yesterday, this plane is obviously overmoddled...i demand its FM is changed "IMMEDIATELY"...or i shall scream until i'm sick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The German planes require more patience and training to fly and fight effectively than the VVS counterparts.

Maple_Tiger

04-16-2004, 01:40 PM

I only fly German aircraft when im feeling notty http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Covino

04-16-2004, 01:49 PM

I love how people say they fly for the Luftwaffe because they were the underdogs. Pffft! The Luftwaffe had the best planes throughout the whole war. The most important aspects of a fighter is speed and climb rate. The Luftwaffe almost always held these advantages. 109's early in the war, 190's towards the end, and jets during the very end. Just because they lost the war, it doesn't mean that they're planes are underdogs. LW planes are just as easy to fly as allied planes if not easier. Diving down on a helpless target and zooming back up isn't exactly rocket science.

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 01:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I love how people say they fly for the Luftwaffe because they were the underdogs. Pffft! The Luftwaffe had the best planes throughout the whole war. The most important aspects of a fighter is speed and climb rate. The Luftwaffe almost always held these advantages. 109's early in the war, 190's towards the end, and jets during the very end. Just because they lost the war, it doesn't mean that they're planes are underdogs. LW planes are just as easy to fly as allied planes if not easier. Diving down on a helpless target and zooming back up isn't exactly rocket science.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! Easy noob planes with big guns. I'd rather shoot them down with my P-51 peashooters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Because the FW-190 was designed and built in Germany http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Besides, it would get boring as hell fighting 109's and 190's all of the time. Flying LW you get to fight against many more types of planes, which is more enjoyable/challenging IMO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must agree, designed and built in Germany http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
If it were built in Russia or the US, I'd still be flying it.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

jensenpark

04-16-2004, 02:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jensenpark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I just fly which ever team needs more people, so I guess my answer is too many reds...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL...too true.
Too many reds, feeling that the VVS plane are uber and everyone likes the underdog, having a 108 nose cannon is a freudian issue covering up for other inadequacies, the list goes on and on...most importantly I can actually semi-decently fly the 109...and not much else.

Why? Because I can't find a picture of Screwball Beurling flying a 109...
Actually I don't see it available enough on the servers...though lately that's been changing.
I'm also being noobish and waiting for the lX!

I always was more interested in the Axis than the allies. I have only been flying the CR.42 and the G.50 and the A6M2 since AEP came out. I think they are more challenging to fly. When you get a kill in the Italian birds, you have accomplished something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
LW planes are just as easy to fly as allied planes if not easier. Diving down on a helpless target and zooming back up isn't exactly rocket science.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what a load of crap

SeaFireLIV

04-16-2004, 05:41 PM

Feel less comfortable in Axis planes.

mcplkelly

04-16-2004, 05:51 PM

I love axis planes. They were usually better than the allied planes until the end of the war when the materials used in planes were crap, due to shortages of metal, and they had a strong armenment. Also all the top scoring aces of the war flew german planes (since they were germans) and got good kills, even when they were outnumbered and outclassed by better allied planes.

KGr.HH-Sunburst

04-16-2004, 05:53 PM

why ?
i like a good challenge
in my n00b days i have flown only VVS ugly ducks but after a year that got boring and got 6 kills per sortie and shooting down 109s got a walk in the park
I now fly the the 109 for a year and never looked back and never will its hard work flying any AXIS plane thats for sure but i do fly the stang alot and its WAY WAY better then any 109 and the .50call do good damage on 109s unlike the no effective MG151/20

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/

[This message was edited by Sunburst-97th on Fri April 16 2004 at 05:19 PM.]

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 06:07 PM

You can always fly a Lagg or Mig (not 3U) if you think the Russian planes are too easy. The German planes ahave quite an advantage then. How do you think they got so many kills?

oh and the funniest thing there is to see is when an Allied (VVS) player flys an Axis plane (not including G2)
on a (NON limited plane set server) and i show him all corners of the map in my 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif and then he hops back in his La,yak whatever to get back at me but i do the same and get in a VVS plane (temperarely ofcourse)
and show him again all corners of the map http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif and i have done this a few times now and all that gets to mind is that Allied(VVS) pilots are very limited pilots
No hard feelings just an observation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/

[This message was edited by Sunburst-97th on Fri April 16 2004 at 05:20 PM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst

04-16-2004, 06:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
You can always fly a Lagg or Mig (not 3U) if you think the Russian planes are too easy. The German planes ahave quite an advantage then. How do you think they got so many kills?

the laGG3 is a very good aircraft and almost impossible to down with the Mg151/20mm

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/

[This message was edited by Sunburst-97th on Fri April 16 2004 at 05:20 PM.]

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 06:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
You can always fly a Lagg or Mig (not 3U) if you think the Russian planes are too easy. The German planes ahave quite an advantage then. How do you think they got so many kills?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You must not be using all corners of the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well i for one like sightseeing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/

Udidtoo

04-16-2004, 06:29 PM

Same reason I fly the allied ones, they are included in the best bar none simm I ever plunked cash down on.

I would feel I was ripping myself off to have not takken them all for a spin at least long enough to get a real feel for the FM.

Also since I prefer the US craft its a great way to "Know thy enemy"

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.

TAGERT.

04-16-2004, 07:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I love how people say they fly for the Luftwaffe because they were the underdogs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I fly for the Luftwaffe because they were the underdogs

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
The Luftwaffe had the best planes throughout the whole war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
The most important aspects of a fighter is speed and climb rate. The Luftwaffe almost always held these advantages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! See this is what happens when you judge history by a GAME instead of by the FACTS. And the FACT is that ENDURANCE was as if not MORE important than speed and climb rate.. Espically when you consider the FACT that dog fights in WWII were the EXCEPTION and not the RULE.. Unlike GAMES!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
109's early in the war, 190's towards the end, and jets during the very end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All of which could barly make it across the pond to attack England let alone fight for any peroied of time.. What good is a good climb rate and speed if you dont have the RANGE to make it to the fight? What good is climb rate and speed when you get shot down by and escort you never even saw while your trying to line up a shot on a B17

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Just because they lost the war, it doesn't mean that they're planes are underdogs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just because the Allied won the war, it doesn't mean that they're planes are underdogs!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
LW planes are just as easy to fly as allied planes if not easier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Againe... history based off GAMES.. not facts

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Diving down on a helpless target and zooming back up isn't exactly rocket science.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

GK.

04-16-2004, 07:31 PM

germany had and still have superior engineers. They produced superior aircraft in world war 2 and produce excellet machinery today. il2 doesnt do the german planes justice. So yes you cant base history off a game, especially a russian one.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*

TAGERT.

04-16-2004, 07:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
germany had and still have superior engineers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A myth really! The only reason the Germans had so much sucess early on is that they started preparing for war a decade before the rest of the world! That is they ramped up thier RnD departments a good 8 years before the rest did... YET! The Russians, Americans and Brits closed that 8 year head start advantage within 3 years!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Cajun76

04-16-2004, 08:43 PM

No choice in your poll suits me. I don't fly Axis planes, but I do hop in a Bf-109, Ta-152, He-111 or a Fw-190 from time to time, either to even teams, or a situation calls for it.

il2 doesnt do the german planes justice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

The german a/c were excellent machines for the most part, but they were never completely dominate. P-11s, Hurries and I-16s were able to shoot them down, as well as the Jug and P-40, planes that were supposedly 'inferior' Just goes to show that good training, pilots, and tactics can win the day. Notice the people who know a lot more about this stuff than you or I, GK, are not complaining a whole lot about FM right now. I think the german virtual planes are the closest they've ever been to thier RL counterparts at this time, and the same goes for most all the other planes, too. Go play CFS3 if you don't like the way IL2 is modeling your K4. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

mcplkelly

04-16-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by BuzzU:
You can always fly a Lagg or Mig (not 3U) if you think the Russian planes are too easy. The German planes ahave quite an advantage then. How do you think they got so many kills?

It is a misconception to say the russian planes and pilots were easy targets. In fact, the russians were formitable opponesnts in the later part of the war. Its true they sucked during the first year or two fighting the germans, but later on they got better. The top allied aces are all russian pilots. The top scoring russian Ivan Kozhedub with 62 kills (the two P-51's he was forced to shoot down when they mistiked his flight for germans are not counted) there are about 10 russian aces that have higher kills of german planes than the top anglo-american ace (he was in the pacific and shot down 42 jap planes). The russians just put up so many planes that the german top aces shot down alot of them.

Breeze147

04-16-2004, 08:49 PM

Once you meet someone who was tatooed by the Nazis and survived, you cannot fight for the German side. My $.02 USD.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.jpg

mcplkelly

04-16-2004, 08:56 PM

Yeah, i guess. But the air war was different from the slaughter and executions and deathcamps that were below them. But who's really innocent is the real question.

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 08:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcplkelly:
Originally posted by BuzzU:
You can always fly a Lagg or Mig (not 3U) if you think the Russian planes are too easy. The German planes ahave quite an advantage then. How do you think they got so many kills?

It is a misconception to say the russian planes and pilots were easy targets. In fact, the russians were formitable opponesnts in the later part of the war. Its true they sucked during the first year or two fighting the germans, but later on they got better. The top allied aces are all russian pilots. The top scoring russian Ivan Kozhedub with 62 kills (the two P-51's he was forced to shoot down when they mistiked his flight for germans are not counted) there are about 10 russian aces that have higher kills of german planes than the top anglo-american ace (he was in the pacific and shot down 42 jap planes). The russians just put up so many planes that the german top aces shot down alot of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't told me anything new. I was talking about the early years. That's why I mentioned the Lagg and Mig. I'm well aware of Kozhedub. I'm sure American fighter pilots could match his record if they fought as long as he did. We didn't punish our boys like the Russians and Germans did theirs.

I'll admit, the germans did push their pilots too hard, basically, you flew none stop till u died. I have no idea about the russian treatment though. You may be right about the american pilots catching up in score, but you have to reconize that the Red airforce put thousands of planes into the air. With those odds it would be hard for the russian pilots to kill germans before another one got him. In the pacific, the americans didn't have as many planes as the russians put up and therefore had more of a chance to knock off a jap before another pilot did. yeah maybe if the americans had fought as long they would match the red airforce in kills, but if the red airforce didn't have as many planes up, the soviet aces might got more planes before someone else did. Again, mabe if the the americans had fought longer, the high scoring aces may of been killed. Who knows, its all guesses

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 09:11 PM

How many times have I heard that the only reason the P-51 got kills was because of its numbers. Kind of goes against your theory.

never heard that before. I guess numbers would do something. But really, numbers dont matter, its all the pilots. You could put up 1000 mustanges against a biplane, but if the pilots cant shoot for s h i t, then what good are they (but i guess eventually they'd accidentally hit it with all the bullets flying, or run into it)

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 09:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcplkelly:
never heard that before. I guess numbers would do something. But really, numbers dont matter, its all the pilots. You could put up 1000 mustanges against a biplane, but if the pilots cant shoot for s h i t, then what good are they (but i guess eventually they'd accidentally hit it with all the bullets flying, or run into it)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was sarcasm on my part. The Luftwhiners here will tell you the P-51 is crap, and only got kills because it outnumbered the enemy. Hang around here for awhile. You'll catch on.

I really think we gotta talk on teamspeak or something. The polls can only take so much of us. And also, I'm not saying the P-51 sucked, its just glorified a little too much.

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 09:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcplkelly:
I really think we gotta talk on teamspeak or something. The polls can only take so much of us. And also, I'm not saying the P-51 sucked, its just glorified a little too much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since everybody gave me away. I was just pulling your strings. I've loved the P-51 for 45 years. I know it's not the best plane out there. I love it anyway, and wouldn't want to fly the best plane. I like a challenge. Sometimes I fire up the P-51 at dusk or early morning and just go for a flight. No fighting, just sightseeing. I just enjoy flying it.

you know, i did think you were being sarcastic even before the others told me (at least i hoped you were). Are you seriously 45 y/o? I'm not mocking you or anything, just i thought you were a teen or something. Your original comments seemed arrogent like most teens sound like. Myself, im just 16 years old. Honestly, i feel way ahead of my age group in terms of conversations. Its nice to get into a debate about stuff i can excel on.

Tagert, I'm talking about fighter effectiveness in this GAME because the topic states "Why do you fly Axis planes (in FB)?" Although things like endurance/range are important in real life, these factors are minor in a dogfight in FB. I'm talking about PERFORMANCE qualities of a fighter that are used in combat (such as roll rate, speed, etc.). The most important fighter performance attributes are speed and/or climb rate (at least for someone who knows how to fly LW planes right).

You said you disagree with me that LW planes held a performance advantage throughout the whole war. Well, you're wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Early in the war 109E held a very identical speed to early Spits (the closest competitor) with both achieving about 450 km/h at sea level but the 109 tipped the scale with its superior climb rate.
Mid-war, the 190 had the best speeds and the 109's had the best climb rates. LW planes held advantage.
Late-war, the 109K outspeeds and outclimbs its closest competitor, the P-51D, and the D-9's performance is on par with the P-51.

Face it, the LW planes were some of the best in WWII. LW planes are the easiest planes to survive in and get kills in when flown right and they are far from "underdogs." Now, where are your facts or do YOU just base all your assumptions off a game? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BuzzU

04-16-2004, 09:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcplkelly:
you know, i did think you were being sarcastic even before the others told me (at least i hoped you were). Are you seriously 45 y/o? I'm not mocking you or anything, just i thought you were a teen or something. Your original comments seemed arrogent like most teens sound like. Myself, im just 16 years old. Honestly, i feel way ahead of my age group in terms of conversations. Its nice to get into a debate about stuff i can excel on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, i'm not 45. I said I was a P-51 fan for 45 years. I became a fan when I was 16. Yes, I was born during the war. My dad was in it, and i've studied it for a long time. Much longer than you've been living.

Most everybody knows I fool around a lot here. You were an easy target. You assumed I knew nothing, and I went with it.

Tagert, I'm talking about fighter effectiveness in this GAME because the topic states "Why do you fly Axis planes (in FB)?" Although things like endurance/range are important in real life, these factors are minor in a dogfight in FB. I'm talking about PERFORMANCE qualities of a fighter that are used in combat (such as roll rate, speed, etc.). The most important fighter performance attributes are speed and/or climb rate (at least for someone who knows how to fly LW planes right).

You said you disagree with me that LW planes held a performance advantage throughout the whole war. Well, you're wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Early in the war 109E held a very identical speed to early Spits (the closest competitor) with both achieving about 450 km/h at sea level but the 109 tipped the scale with its superior climb rate.
Mid-war, the 190 had the best speeds and the 109's had the best climb rates. LW planes held advantage.
Late-war, the 109K outspeeds and outclimbs its closest competitor, the P-51D, and the D-9's performance is on par with the P-51.

Face it, the LW planes were some of the best in WWII. LW planes are the easiest planes to survive in and get kills in when flown right and they are far from "underdogs." Now, where are your facts or do YOU just base all your assumptions off a game? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever hear of BOB? They should have slaughtered the Brits with their superior planes. What happened?

Well i guess you've had more time to study the war then. The reasion i attacked you so quickly was that i hoped you were an arrogant person who knew nothing about the war and just talked crap. I must admit i find it gratifying in proving someone wrong, especially on topics about war. Also, I'm Canadian and i find it anoying when americans glorify their role in wars and how they think they were the best. Now, dont get me wrong, I KNOW many americans do not think that, but there are those arrogant few. Those people drive me mad and i assumed you were one of them. Personaly, im not good at telling sarcasm in real conversations, so my sarcasm ability on forms is nill, nuta, nothing at all. Anyway, it was a nice debate none the less, even if u were sarcastic. Maby we'll talk some more tomarrow, but i gotta go to sleep, its midnight here.

Yeah, and to your other question, the brits won the battle of britian for these reasions:

- The german fighters could only guard the bomber over england for 30 min because of low range

- The germans underestimated the brits airforce because of their victory in france and how the brits were pushed into the sea

- The german pilots who bailed out were captured while the RAF pilots who bailed out landed on home ground and went straight back into fighting

- The germans stopped bombing the RAF airfeilds and started bombing london in responce to the bombing of berlin by the brits
which gave time for the RAF to recover

- The germans decided to attack london during daylight and the brits managed to put up "big wings" or large numbers of spits and hurricans to battle the germans which even'd the odds

- The brits had radar which gave them a heads up and allowed them to scramble fighters to intercept the germans before they reached their targets

- The brits had the advantage of surprise when attacking

- The brits were fighting for their way of life, thats one hell of an incentive to fight hard.

- The british could scrambe a squadron of fighters in 3 minutes to intercept the germans.

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 01:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Tagert, I'm talking about fighter effectiveness in this GAME because the topic states "Why do you fly Axis planes (in FB)?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good, so you realise that what makes an aircraft great in this game does not mean it was great in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Although things like endurance/range are important in real life, these factors are minor in a dogfight in FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I'm talking about PERFORMANCE qualities of a fighter that are used in combat (such as roll rate, speed, etc.). The most important fighter performance attributes are speed and/or climb rate (at least for someone who knows how to fly LW planes right).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! But not a hard mistake to make when your only point of view is from a game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
You said you disagree with me that LW planes held a performance advantage throughout the whole war. Well, you're wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you focus on just one aspect Im sure you could find some cases where that seesm true.. But when you look at the big picture.. You will realise it is not the case.. For example.. You would be one that claims a DRAGSTER has beter performance than a SPORTS CAR because the DRAGSTER can go from 0 to 60 faster than a SPORTS CAR... Do you see how silly that is? Espically if the task at hand envolves a few turns?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Early in the war 109E held a very identical speed to early Spits (the closest competitor) with both achieving about 450 km/h at sea level but the 109 tipped the scale with its superior climb rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I said above.. it is easy to find ONE thing that another did better.. Let me show you how easy it is.. Early in the war the 109E held a very identical dive speed to the early Spits (the closest competitor) but the Spit tipped the scale in elevator efectiness.. in that many 109E's lawn darted in a dive chasing Spits.. See how easy it is to FOCUS on one aspect? Dont be fooled by those simple one aspect comparsions.. Because when you do.. You will find yourself scratching your head and wondering why.. and HOW did the Allieds win the air war! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Mid-war, the 190 had the best speeds and the 109's had the best climb rates. LW planes held advantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet the Allies won.. Go figure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Late-war, the 109K outspeeds and outclimbs its closest competitor, the P-51D, and the D-9's performance is on par with the P-51.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet the Allies won.. go figure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Face it, the LW planes were some of the best in WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Face it.. A dragster might be real good at doing 0 to 60.. but a sports car will do better on the turns.. Therefore, you have to look at the big picture.. Where it takes a WELL ROUNEDED aircraft to be the BEST! Being best at one aspect is not what makes for the best aircraft.. OR WIN WARS!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
LW planes are the easiest planes to survive in and get kills in when flown right and they are far from "underdogs."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Never said they were... And never said the were not! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Now, where are your facts or do YOU just base all your assumptions off a game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You say that as if you stated some sort of facts! Nice try.. no sale! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 01:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
Great shot EvilBen, TAGERT is outta here!
TARGET fills TAGERT with holes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Is this what they resort to when faced with the facts? Sorry if I burst your bubble.. Oh.. by the way.. The Germans were not supermen.. And there is no easter bunny either!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

robban75

04-17-2004, 02:01 AM

I fly the Fw 190, because it's my favourite WW2 fighter. Some people in here fly P-51's, Spits and Jugs for the same reason, some are just patriotic. Well, I'm not German, nor am I Russian, American or British. The D-9 is my bird, and the fact that it was THE best fighter of WW2 is just a bonus. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Covino

04-17-2004, 07:34 AM

Tagert, I give up. I've put my cards on the table that LW planes held better performance in speed and climb rate and also some other aspects (guns, 190 durablity, etc.) through the war but you seem to think the LW planes are underdogs. I've still not heard what makes a good fighter in your opinion and give me some reasons why LW planes were worse than their allied couterparts in combat.

I hope you have fun in Hyperlobby thinking you're flying the underdog planes when you're flying the fastest plane and also the fastest climbing plane and the plane with some of the biggest guns. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

EDIT: And you said you think a well-rounded plane was important . The 109's were the most well-rounded planes but just so happened to also be the fastest/fastest climbing. There's nothing they don't do well. BTW, a well-rounded plane is generally not one that is good for combat. This means they don't really excel at anything and you can't exploit an enemies weakness very well.

[This message was edited by EvilBen on Sat April 17 2004 at 06:48 AM.]

Flying-Psyduck

04-17-2004, 08:01 AM

Because the bf110 is an axis plane!!!
It's lovely...

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 09:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Tagert, I give up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ironic... So did Germany.. You know the guys who supposably had better airplanes! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I've put my cards on the table that LW planes held better performance in speed and climb rate<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ironic... Cards.. One card at a time.. But you have to look at all 52 to judge/have a deck.. Just like you have to consider the aircraft as a whole.. not just ONE card/aspect..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
and also some other aspects (guns, 190 durablity, etc.) through the war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Durability? You know just saying something does not make it true... As for guns.. Again, from a GAME point of view BIGGER IS BETTER.. But when you stop and consider the REAL job at hand.. You will realize that in General the Lw had to defend against BIG BOMBERS.. Thus BIG GUNS! The US did NOT have a BIG BOMBER threat to the home land.. The MAJORITY of the time it was fighters attacking other fighters. In a GAME a big explosion on the screen is COOL.. But in real life all you had to do is damage the fighter... GRAVITY would do the rest! Thus increasing your PROBABILITY of hitting the FAST SMALL FIGHTER is paramount.. And the way to do that is with MORE guns with MORE ammo not BIGGER gun with LESS ammo.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
but you seem to think the LW planes are underdogs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said that.. I just said they were not the BEST FIGHTERS. When you look at the Lw JOB.. i.e. defending the homeland from bombers.. They were well suited for the task.. You have to climb fast and have big guns to take down 1000 bombers... The Germans engineers had it easy.. No need to design a long range fighter.. The Lw wasn't going anywhere.. The fight was in their back yard.. No need to worried about pilot fatigue.. They didn't stay in the air long... I think the 109 had about a 90 min flight time on a tank of gas... Where as the P51 could fly for hours on a tank of gas.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I've still not heard what makes a good fighter in your opinion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What part of WELL ROUNDED did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
and give me some reasons why LW planes were worse than their allied couterparts in combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well.. I never said they were worse.. And I never said they were better.. I simply pointed out that your criteria for best or worst is criteria for a GAME and not the real war.. The Allied had their NEEDS and the Axis had their NEEDS.. Those NEEDS played into the design criteria for the aircraft.. Now for the most part EVERYONE in the war except the US had pretty much the same NEEDS.. i.e. a fighter that had to contend with BOMBERS and FIGHTERS... Where as the US did NOT have a BOMBER threat to the homeland.. That FACT is reflected in the USAAF designs... The USN is a little different case... They took their HOMES into battle.. i.e. the FLATTOPS.. And you see that in their designs... In that the USN had to contend with BOMBERS attacking them.. Thus the USN toyed with the idea of CANNONS on the F4u.. But, they actually stuck with the .50s in that they worked fine on bombers too.. Wasn't until near the end of the war when the JAPS were flying into ships that they considered CANNONS again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I hope you have fun in Hyperlobby thinking you're flying the underdog planes when you're flying the fastest plane and also the fastest climbing plane and the plane with some of the biggest guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You do realize that Hyperlobby is a GAME server and not a TIME MACHINE that propels you back 60+ years?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
EDIT: And you said you think a well-rounded plane was important . The 109's were the most well-rounded planes but just so happened to also be the fastest/fastest climbing. There's nothing they don't do well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh man *wipes tear from eye* that was a good one.. Thanks Ben!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
BTW, a well-rounded plane is generally not one that is good for combat. This means they don't really excel at anything and you can't exploit an enemies weakness very well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%... As did the allied engineers.. You know the guys who made the planes for the side that WON THE WAR!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

robban75

04-17-2004, 01:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Ironic... Cards.. One card at a time.. But you have to look at all 52 to judge/have a deck.. Just like you have to consider the aircraft as a whole.. not just ONE card/aspect..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it works both ways too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Never said that.. I just said they were not the BEST FIGHTERS. When you look at the Lw JOB.. i.e. defending the homeland from bombers.. They were well suited for the task.. You have to climb fast and have big guns to take down 1000 bombers... The Germans engineers had it easy.. No need to design a long range fighter.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that German engineer Edgar Schmued sure couldn't design fighters. Btw, ever checked out the range for the Ta 152?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well.. I never said they were worse.. And I never said they were better..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to, reading your postings gives quite a good idea of your thoughts on LW fighters.

Take off that blindfold Tagert, please.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Kurfurst__

04-17-2004, 02:23 PM

As for why, a picture tells a thousend words :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/me109g-020.jpg

I like flying the same plane that was produced here, what our pilots flew, and what protected our airspace against all odds - not to mention it was top notch fighter in it`s time.

As for the range issue, the Bf 109F/G/K had a range of 615 miles on internal, and 1000 miles w droptank, the FW 190A was similiar. This was more than sufficient for the task the Germans had to cope with.In fact range on internal fuel was 40% higher than the Spitfire - still one can never hear one critizing for it`s range.. But if you never need to escort bombers 2000 miles into the enemy`s heartland, because you have bases just 100 miles from it, you will never need the extra range either. So you can concentrate on improving the flying qualities and armament.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 02:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
And it works both ways too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! Mater of fact I thought I made that clear.. Guess not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Yeah, that German engineer Edgar Schmued sure couldn't design fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%! I think he had some very cool stuff

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Btw, ever checked out the range for the Ta 152?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. did you ever check out the range of the 109?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
You don't have to, reading your postings gives quite a good idea of your thoughts on LW fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You must be reading into it.. I simply pointed out that the criteria that he noted can not be taken one at a time.. You have to consider the package as a whole... *AND* the job it had to do... Pretty simple really.. From an engineering and requirments aspect.. But it is clear that emotions is what drives you and yours

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Take off that blindfold Tagert, please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What blind fold? What did I say that was wrong? What part did you not understand? Or do you think a DRAGSTER is better than a SPORTS car on a twisting turning mountain road?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Baltar

04-17-2004, 03:09 PM

Because they were made by the master race (duh).

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 03:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Yes.. did you ever check out the range of the 109?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously you haven't.

Most range statistics for the 109 are given at cruise speeds higher than 300mph.(max cruise settings) As Kurfurst has already pointed out, the 109 had an economical cruise range of 600+ miles and nearly 1,000 miles with just a small 66 imp. gallon drop tank. Same for the FW190.

That's actually better range on internal fuel and a higher cruise speed than some American variants of the P-47, P-39, P-63, and P-38 on_internal_ fuel alone.

The P-47 of course was a *highly inneficient* GAS HOG which only got long range by carrying around gigantic 150+ gallon drop tanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In short, American a/c were certainly no more fuel efficient on the whole than German a/c, they just lugged around gigantic gas cans to get that range http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

VW-IceFire

04-17-2004, 03:31 PM

I'm pretty much consigned that all of the major nations in the war (and even the minor ones) produced equally impressive aircraft in terms of technical ability or performance result and they differed alot on the levels of what the fighters were designed for and how they were used. The 109 was designed to be used in lightning offensives over short distances. When used in another way (i.e. escorting bombers to England) they suffered somewhat. The 109 was also an adept interceptor with some of the best climb rates and with effective firepower. The 190 was created as a supplement and ended up being a very well armed and fast fighter. It never really suffered from being used in any capacity but again it was designed with similar notions as the 109 and wasn't really used for long range work. The USAAF was oriented towards long range strategic support of bombers...we see this in the P-47, the P-51, the P-38, and to a lesser extent the P-40. The Russians built fighters that were designed to be operated by pilots on a minimum number of training hours and optimized for low altitude operations to tactically support ground troops. For the RAF the Spitfire was designed as a defensive fighter to shoot down bombers and fighters over Englang. Thats what it did and it was never good at long range escort...it seems pretty obvious that each fighter and each plane had its elements.

Some were better than others and some were better rounded than others but each nation built aircraft that were designed for certain roles and ultimately all of those were effective in their role to one extent or another.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
As for guns.. Again, from a GAME point of view BIGGER IS BETTER..

__TAGERT__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In _real life_ BIGGER IS BETTER.

The trend toward effective armament today just like in WWII was not the 12 gun .303 pea shooters on the early Hurricanes or even the 8 wing mounted .50 cals on the P-47 but rather BIG cannons mounted on the fuselage center-line.

This is exactly why weapons arrangement such as on the the 8-12 gun Hurricanes faded into oblivion.

Also why the VVS felt the 8 .50 cal on the P-47 didn't suit them: the P-47 carried no cannons.

The very best gun arrangements during WWII were big cannons mounted on the center-line, a/c like the La-7 3X20mm, the 30mm MK108 on the 109K.

The very best gun arrangement of the war for piston-engine fighters was probably the Ta-152H with a center mounted MK108 and two nacelle mounted 20mm cannons.

In short, cannons are simply superior to machine guns. It really is that simple.

...didn't those same fuel inefficient US birds own the skies over Germany during the latter stages of the war... ?

And, if one could zip back to late '44 and ask them, do you think their pilots could give a stuff about their fuel ineffiency ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed the point.

The point was that most people don't really know what they are talking about when it comes to range, not who won the war.

But to answer your question, flying in big lazy gaggles of 600-700 fighters along with 900-1000 bombers - no I don't think they could care much about how much fuel they were burning.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Black Sheep

04-17-2004, 03:56 PM

My apologies FW109fan, I hadn't missed the point at all - it was simply a gentle dig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I just didn't think that at the time the allies were that concerned with the vast quantities of petrol, oil and lubricants they were using up provided they had access to enough; after all, these aircraft were designed to carry to the war to the enemy's heartland and the priority was to get them there and then back again: not preserve POL stocks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Most range statistics for the 109 are given at cruise speeds higher than 300mph.(max cruise settings)As Kurfurst has already pointed out, the 109 had an economical cruise range of 600+ miles and nearly 1,000 miles with just a small 66 imp. gallon drop tank. Same for the FW190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW 600 miles! With numbers like that it makes one wonder whey the Lw was not crossing the pond on a dayly bases! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
That's actually better range on internal fuel and a higher cruise speed than some American variants of the P-47, P-39, P-63, and P-38 on_internal_ fuel alone.Variants.. LOL!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FW190fan:
The P-47 of course was a *highly inneficient* GAS HOG which only got long range by carrying around gigantic 150+ gallon drop tanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
In short, American a/c were certainly no more fuel efficient on the whole than German a/c, they just lugged around gigantic gas cans to get that range<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!

Ah thanks Fw190 fan.. That was a good one.. never seen anyone every really try and push that angle! Funny stuff!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 04:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
In _real life_ BIGGER IS BETTER.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! Depends on the job at hand.. The US didnt have a threat to the homeland like everyone else did.. That and none of the Axis bombers were any where near as hard to knock down as the Allies bombers. Nice try.. but no sale!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 04:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
it was simply a gentle dig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And your point is well taken http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

ASM 1

04-17-2004, 04:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I fly the Fw 190, because it's my favourite WW2 fighter. Some people in here fly P-51's, Spits and Jugs for the same reason, some are just patriotic. Well, I'm not German, nor am I Russian, American or British. The D-9 is my bird, and the fact that it was THE best fighter of WW2 is just a bonus. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one man - my sentiments exactly! although I am a fan of the 190 family particularly the D9 I like the TA152 H best it is my fav Axis plane of WW2 - in game I dont think it quite lives up to its potential (at least going by the paper specs/ figures) yet! Although I havent tested extensively - I leave this to others more experienced. Of course it could just be my flying that is crap! LOL! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh by the way I'm British (Scottish if that narrows it down?) does that make me a bad person just cos I fly blue ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And anyway nobody in their right minds is going to turn round in here and say that they fly Axis planes because of the Ideology they represented (yeah I know on dangerous grounds here but it IS relevant and NO I do NOT want to go into this any further i.e. to the point where it degenerates into a flame fest - for the record I find the aforementioned ideology, abhorrent) so the question, while valid is rather bizzare, by using the word "axis" is the original poster trying to infer some connection with the associated ideology ?

Yes I know that we are supposedly all adults in here and the term axis is fairly innocuous, not to mention correct. The question is open to interpertation though.There is probably no malice intended which is fair enough and maybe I am reading too much into it - forgive me, its late and I am tired. I just thought I'd voice this opinion/point.

/rant over
lol - wasnt intended as such and not trying to offend.... just my rather long 2p worth (and possible over reaction on my part- sorry!)

Cheers

Andrew
Look! I even have an AXIS plane in my sig! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif its the daddy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif :

Disagree 100%! Depends on the job at hand.. The US didnt have a threat to the homeland like everyone else did.. That and none of the Axis bombers were any where near as hard to knock down as the Allies bombers. Nice try.. but no sale!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is the case then why do you think the RAF ditched machine guns for cannons as the war progressed ?

Spitfire Mk I's flew with eight rifle caliber machine guns yet late marks flew with nothing but four big cannons, and at a time when the RAF was no longer tied up with air defence of the UK but foraying into France to engage the Luftwaffe in the air ?

Not just the Spits either but all late war RAF fighter aircraft strapped on as many big guns as they could carry.

To suggest machine guns do the job better than cannons is a little preposterous....

WOW 600 miles! With numbers like that it makes one wonder whey the Lw was not crossing the pond on a dayly bases! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

Did you mean "daily basis"?

LOL!

The 600 mile (actually 644 miles LOL!) range is at a speed of 300mph and with internal fuel_only_(LOL!). In the case of the Focke-Wulf that means about 116 imperial gallons of fuel.

Now, what's the range for:

P-39 with 116 imperial gallons at 300mph (LOL!)

P-63 with 116 imperial gallons at 300mph (LOL!)

P-40 with 116 imperial gallons at 300mph (LOL!)

P-38 with 116 imperial gallons at 300mph (LOL!)

P-47 with 116 imperial gallons at 300mph (LOL!)

P-51 with 116 imperial gallons at 300mph (LOL!)

Now, show me exactly where American fighters have much better range with similar fuel loadouts and I will:

AGREE 100%

LOL!

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 04:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
[Ah thanks Fw190 fan.. That was a good one.. never seen anyone every really try and push that angle! Funny stuff!

This simply doesn't change the fact that cannons are superior to machine guns in_all_phases of aerial combat, regardless of whether it is fighter on fighter or intercepting heavy bombers.

Cannons are better.

FACT.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 04:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
If this is the case then why do you think the RAF ditched machine guns for cannons as the war progressed ?

Spitfire Mk I's flew with eight rifle caliber machine guns yet late marks flew with nothing but four big cannons, and at a time when the RAF was no longer tied up with air defence of the UK but foraying into France to engage the Luftwaffe in the air ? Not just the Spits either but all late war RAF fighter aircraft strapped on as many big guns as they could carry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple because hind sight is 20:20.. That is it is easy to say that now.. knowing what we know now.. ie the Lw not making it across the pond.. But at that time the RAF didnt know that.. and was the RAF's responsabilty to protect the UK. Thus they maintained the option.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
To suggest machine guns do the job better than cannons is a little preposterous....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well first you would have to define what you mean by BETTER.. Then we can talk. But I will say this.. Cannons are better for BIG SLOW moving aircraft like bombers where it takes ALOT to take them out... Fighters on the other hand dont requrie as much to take them down.. Just have to damage them enough that the pilot can not make it home... Gravity will do the rest!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 04:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
This simply doesn't change the fact that cannons are superior to machine guns in_all_phases of aerial combat, regardless of whether it is fighter on fighter or intercepting heavy bombers.

Cannons are better.

FACT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry but your are wrong... Oh, hay, try counting to 10 before you reply.. That will enable you to get through the whole post and maybe limit your replys to one instead of multi replys to the same post

OK, please tell us all how smaller, less destructive machine guns are superior to cannons, _especially_ cannons centrally mounted(which is really the best gun arrangement of WWII)

Maybe you could make something up about muzzle velocity or the great and many benefits of "spray and pray", but wait a second, that's all been de-bunked already.

LOL!

Oh, and you shouldn't use the excuse that machine guns are superior to cannons simply because American planes mostly used only machine guns either. (Also de-bunked LOL!)

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 05:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Oh, hay, try counting to 10 before you reply.. That will enable you to get through the whole post and maybe limit your replys to one instead of multi replys to the same post

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh that, so sorry - it's a bad habit I have where I like to address nimrodicity one point at a time.

Guess you'll have to live with it.

LOL!

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Black Sheep

04-17-2004, 05:02 PM

Simple because hind sight is 20:20.. That is it is easy to say that now.. knowing what we know now.. ie the Lw not making it across the pond.. But at that time the RAF didnt know that.. and was the RAF's responsabilty to protect the UK. Thus they maintained the option.

What 20/20 ? The RAF were taking delivery of cannon armed aircraft as the war progressed. See the Vb in the sig ? It has two cannons and was first delivered to the RAF in 1941. If I'm not mistaken, the Luftwaffe were still crossing the Channel to attack targets in Southern England at this point. The RAF knew cannons were the way to go.

Well first you would have to define what you mean by BETTER.. Then we can talk. But I will say this.. Cannons are better for BIG SLOW moving aircraft like bombers where it takes ALOT to take them out... Fighters on the other hand dont requrie as much to take them down.. Just have to damage them enough that the pilot can not make it home... Gravity will do the rest!

Yep, absolutely right, machine guns will take down another fighter... if you pump enough rounds into the target. Cannons do an awful lot more damage than any machine gun out there and inprove the pilot's chances of downing the target rather than simply damaging it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
OK, please tell us all how smaller, less destructive machine guns are superior to cannons<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of Gravity do you not understand?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 05:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Oh that, so sorry - it's a bad habit I have where I like to address nimrodicity one point at a time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Guess you'll have to live with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh I can live with it... but can you? Might want to check your blood pressure? Oh, hey, if you dont know how to do multi quotes in one message PM me and I will explain it to you

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Boandlgramer

04-17-2004, 05:07 PM

is Tagert with a ." the same guy as Tagert without a "." ?
if yes , fw190fan, it could be a very........ very....... long conversation with him . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
animating

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
What 20/20 ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The 2020 that comes with knowing how the war turned out.. In short the RAF did not know for sure if the Lw would/could attack the homeland.. Unlike the USAAF knew for sure that there was no chance of the Lw aircraft making it across the atlantic.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 05:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
What part of my nimrodicity do you not understand?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of it, LOL!

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 05:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>fw190fan, it could be a very........ very....... long conversation with him . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
animating

Boandlgramer
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I know Boandlgramer, I've had "conversations" with tagert before http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But this is the most fun I've had boosting my post count in ages http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LOL!

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 05:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
All of it, LOL!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of that much I am sure.. But seriously.. the only way you could not understand this is if your the kind of guy that kills an ant in the drive way by starting up his car and driving over it instead of just stepping on it with your foot.. Look up the word OVERKILL and get back to me

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Black Sheep

04-17-2004, 05:16 PM

The 2020 that comes with knowing how the war turned out.. In short the RAF did not know for sure if the Lw would/could attack the homeland.. Unlike the USAAF knew for sure that there was no chance of the Lw aircraft making it across the atlantic.

Yet surely, if your point of view is correct - that machine gun armed aircraft are truly superior to cannon armed examples - the RAF must have been quite foolish to have abandoned large arrays of machine guns in their aircraft for a pair of cannons and a few larger caliber machines guns - and then cannons only ?

Because that is what you're suggesting isn't it ? That the RAF took a gamble with heavier armed aircraft rather than sticking with rifle calibre machine guns ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
But this is the most fun I've had boosting my post count in ages<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! I can not tell you how happy I am to hear that! So, you just playing devils advocate.. That's cool! Makes sense now.. For a min I thought you were going nuts, trying to imply the ENDURANCE of Lw ac was on par with US aircraft.. Or that you have to blow a fighter into a millions bits to take it out.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

FW190fan

04-17-2004, 05:22 PM

tagert, why do you hate ants?

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

TAGERT.

04-17-2004, 05:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Yet surely, if your point of view is correct - that machine gun armed aircraft are truly superior to cannon armed examples - <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>STOP! Let me say it yet again.. What is this like the 3rd time now? Oh well.. one more time..

THE JOB AT HAND dictates the NEED.. Im not saying mg are better than cannons across the board..

I will say mg are fine for fighter vs. fighter... Even better when you take into account that you can have more of them with more ammo.. Something that improves your chance of a hit..

I will say cannons are fine for fighter vs. bomber... Even better when you take into account that bombers dont jink around as much and thus you dont have to guess at (lead) the aim as much.

Note
An excess of what is necessary or appropriate for a particular end

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Boandlgramer

04-17-2004, 05:24 PM

I must take tagert ( point or not ) in protection.
his granny has german roots. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif i tell you. so he is almost a fellow countryman of me. almost. so take care what you are writing here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

STOP! Let me say it yet again.. What is this like the 3rd time now? Oh well.. one more time..

THE JOB AT HAND dictates the NEED.. Im not saying mg are better than cannons across the board..

I will say mg are fine for fighter vs. fighter... Even better when you take into account that you can have more of them with more ammo.. Something that improves your chance of a hit..

I will say cannons are fine for fighter vs. bomber... Even better when you take into account that bombers dont jink around as much and thus you dont have to guess at (lead) the aim as much

Okay, think about this:

1944.

Few to no German raids over the UK.

Numerous RAF types armed with nothing but cannon.

RAF doing little but shooting down V1's over the UK and the Luftwaffe over Western France. Hardly any bomber aircraft involved at all.

Why, then, did they choose to arm their aircraft with cannon if they thought they weren't going to be doing a great deal but tooling about over the near continent engaging fighter aircraft in the air and anything that moved on the ground ?

RAF doing little but shooting down V1's over the UK and the Luftwaffe over Western France. Hardly any bomber aircraft involved at all.

Why, then, did they choose to arm their aircraft with cannon if they thought they weren't going to be doing a great deal but tooling about over the near continent engaging fighter aircraft in the air and anything that moved on the ground ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of not knowing for sure do you not understand? Your DUH statment is made with hind sight info (ie 2020) that they did not have AT THAT TIME!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Black Sheep

04-17-2004, 05:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
(bangs head against wall)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think we have identified the problem.. dont do that!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Head hurts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Snip

What part of not knowing for sure do you not understand? Your DUH statment is made with hind sight info (ie 2020) that they did not have AT THAT TIME!

This is my point ! If they weren't certain, why begin to replace machine guns with cannons ?

I think we shall have to agree to disagree over the merits of heavier armed aircraft engaging other fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
This is my point ! If they weren't certain, why begin to replace machine guns with cannons ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you saying that the RAF started replacing CANNONS with MG near the end of the war? I dont think that was the case? Maybe the exception.. but I dont think it was the rule?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
I think we shall have to agree to disagree over the merits of heavier armed aircraft engaging other fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed! I just thank god that the USAAF didnt 2nd guess the fact and made good use of Gravity... It is hard to realise this.. because after playing games where there is no fear of death.. People tend to walk away with the FALSE impression that it was the RULE to press on an attack of a B17 while a P51 put .50cals into your tail.. But it wasnt! It was the EXCEPTION not the RULE in REAL LIFE!! And .50cal are more than enought to cause a REAL HUMAN with concerns about LIFE and DEATH to BREAK OFF the attack

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Still, at least my post count has increased a bit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What ever blows you skirt up! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Works for Fw190fan! Why not you!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

ASM 1

04-18-2004, 04:18 AM

OK OK is this not all getting a bit OT http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif ? In a thread about why peple fly Axis aircraft, first we have the My Guns bigger than yours **** fest - Really what does it matter ? in all fairness if you get hit by a .303 or a MK108 canon shell, you'd probably still end up rather dead! (esp if you get hit in the head! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif)
- no offence but if you guys wanna take the p!ss please go do it in a private topic, or start a new thread about "Gun Effectiveness" or whatever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'm not a mod but surely a bit of common sense wouldnt go amiss here, yes there are lots of bad people in the world... but this is asking for trouble http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Ah well, all down hill from now on in.....

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

[This message was edited by asm016 on Sun April 18 2004 at 04:58 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Sun April 18 2004 at 06:46 AM.]

crazyivan1970

04-18-2004, 07:45 AM

Some of you guys have amazing ability to give political flavor to just about anything. I think it has nothing to do with this poll, want me to lock it or something?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.